Dynetix Design Solutions, Inc. v. Synopsys, Inc.

Filing 299

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTIONS TO SEAL by Judge Paul S. Grewal granting in part and denying in part 216 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 229 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 236 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 244 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 251 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (psglc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/3/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
12
13
14
15
16
17

DYNETIX DESIGN SOLUTIONS INC., a
California corporation,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
)
SYNOPSYS INC., a Delaware corporation, and )
DOES 1-50,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

Case No.: C 11-CV-05973 PSG
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART
SYNOPSYS’S AND DYNETIX’S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO
FILE UNDER SEAL
(Re: Docket No. 216, 229, 236, 244, and
251)

Before the court are five administrative motions to seal. Two are filed by Defendant

18
19

Synopsys Inc. (“Synopsys”), and three are filed by Plaintiff, Dynetix Design Solutions Inc.

20

(“Dynetix”). The parties move to seal information that was produced during discovery with the

21

designation “Highly Confidential – Attorney’s Eyes Only” and “Highly Confidential Source Code”

22

pursuant to the parties’ stipulated protective order.1

23

I.

24

The court takes this opportunity to review the procedure for filing documents under seal, set

25
26
27
28

LEGAL STANDARD

forth under Civil Local Rule 79-5, which does not appear to have been scrupulously followed in
1

See Docket No. 39.

1
Case No.: C 11-CV-05973 PSG
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTIONS TO SEAL

1

this case. When a party wishes to file under seal based on the confidential nature of only a portion

2

of a document, the submitting party must file on ECF a redacted version of the document, striking

3

only the portions designated confidential.2 Then, the designating party must submit a supporting

4

declaration within seven days establishing the redacted portion is sealable, or else withdrawing the

5

confidential designation.3

6
7
8
9

The rule permits sealing of documents only where the party has “establishe[d] that the
document or portions thereof is privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to
protection under the law.”4 The party must “narrowly tailor” their requests only to sealable

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

material.5 The party designating the information as “confidential” bears the burden of establishing

11

that the information is sealable. To seal documents attached to nondispositive motions, as is the

12

case here, the designating party must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c).6 The

13

party must make a “particularized showing”7 that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the

14
15
16
17

information is disclosed.8 These requirements exist because a blanket protective order that allows
the parties to designate confidential documents does not provide sufficient judicial scrutiny to
determine whether each particular document should remain sealed.9

18
19
20

2

See Civil L.R. 79-5(c)-(d).

21

3

See id. subsection (d).

22

4

See id. subsection (a).

23

5

24

6

25
26
27
28

See id.

Kamakana v. City and City. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotations
and citations omitted).
7

Id.

8

Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(c).

9

See Civil L.R. 79-5(a).

2
Case No.: C 11-CV-05973 PSG
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTIONS TO SEAL

II.

1

DISCUSSION

2

The documents at issue were attached to the briefs filed regarding Dynetix’s First and

3

Second Motions to Compel. The court has considered each of the documents the parties have

4

designated for sealing and, as articulated in the table below, determined which documents may

5

remain under seal or redacted and which documents must be unsealed.

6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

DN
REQUEST
216 Exhibits A-E & Q to
Declaration of Jason K.
Yu in Support of
Synopsys’s Opposition
to Dynetix’s First
Motion to Compel

Synopsys’s request to seal Exhibit Q is DENIED. Exhibit Q is a
non-disclosure agreement Synopsys uses with its customers, with
any identifying information or confidential subject matter
redacted. Synopsys has not demonstrated how disclosure of the
remaining boilerplate language typically found in non-disclosure
agreements would result in harm.
229 Exhibits A & B to
Dynetix’s request to seal Exhibits A and B is DENIED. The
Declaration of J. James exhibits contain excerpts of deposition transcripts of Synopsys’s
Li in Support of
witnesses Pallab Dasgupta and Usha Gaira. The excerpts focus
Dynetix’s First Motion on the number of tests Synopsys runs, as well as these
to Compel
employees’ duties regarding the tests. Synopsys fails to even
broadly state what type of harm would result from public
disclosure of these excerpts. It also failed to narrowly tailor its
request.
Portions of Dynetix’s
Dynetix’s request to seal the redacted portions is DENIED.
Reply in Support of its These portions of the reply only reference information revealed
First Motion to Compel in the deposition excerpts, which have been determined not to be
sealable.
236 Exhibits A-E & G to
Dynetix’s request on Synopsys’s behalf to seal Exhibits A and B
Declaration of J. James are DENIED. The exhibits consist of excerpts from depositions
Li in Support of
of Synopsys employees. The excerpts primarily focus on the
Plaintiff’s Second
existence of the Wiki page and specifications used by Synopsys
Motion to Compel
employees. Synopsys fails to show how disclosure of the mere
existence of these documents would result in harm.
Dynetix’s request on Synopsys’s behalf to seal Exhibits C and D
are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. While the exhibits
appear to be related to development and design, as Synopsys
asserts, Synopsys has failed to show why disclosure of design
and testing schedules would be harmful.

23
24
25
26
27
28

RESULT
Synopsys’s request to seal Exhibits A-E is GRANTED. Exhibits
A-E are results of performance tests that were run using DLP
and ALP. As these documents contain customer information and
are kept highly confidential, the court finds Synopsys has
sufficiently shown good cause.

Portions of Dynetix’s
Second Motion to
Compel

Dynetix’s request on Synopsys’s behalf to seal Exhibits E and G
are GRANTED. Both exhibits are Synopsys’s confidential
design specifications for the Parallel VCS project.
Dynetix’s request on Synopsys’s behalf to seal portions of its
Second Motion to Compel is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Although Synopsys correctly identifies design features and
3

Case No.: C 11-CV-05973 PSG
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTIONS TO SEAL

1
2
3
4
5
6

244 Exhibits D-O, V, and
W to Declaration of
Jason K. Yu in Support
of Synopsys’s
Opposition to
Dynetix’s Second
Motion to Compel

7

Synopsys’s request to seal Exhibit V is GRANTED. Exhibit V
is a description of the software for the VCS Cloud Project, which
has never been officially released. The court finds good cause to
seal Exhibit V.

8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

Exhibit A to
Declaration of Ushir
Shah in Support of
Synopsys’s Opposition
to Dynetix’s Second
Motion to Compel
251 Exhibits B and C to
Reply Declaration of J.
James Li in Support of
Plaintiff’s Second
Motion to Compel

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

source code as proprietary information that may properly be
sealed, the motion also includes discussions of project leaders
and the mere existence of specifications and the Wiki page.
Because of this, the court finds the motion is not narrowly
tailored.
Synopsys’s request to seal Exhibits D-O is GRANTED. Exhibits
D, G, H, and O include source code and Exhibits E, F, and J-N
are detailed design specifications. Source code is generally
accepted to be highly confidential and sealable and Synopsys has
asserted that disclosure of the designs would be harmful because
competitors could use them to gain a competitive advantage.
The court finds Synopsys has shown good cause.

Portions of Dynetix’s
Reply in Support of its
Second Motion to
Compel

Synopsys’s request to seal Exhibit W is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE. Exhibit W is a user manual provided to customers
which provides detailed instructions, including command lines,
for running and using the features of VCS MX. Synopsys makes
a vague statement that this information is confidential, but fails
to make a particularized showing why disclosure of this
information would result in harm.
Synopsys’s request to seal Exhibit A is GRANTED. Exhibit A
consists of source code from the multicore features of
Synopsys’s VCS product, which has been shown to meet the
good cause standard.
Dynetix’s request on behalf of Synopsys to seal Exhibit B is
GRANTED. Exhibit B appears to be a tracking sheet for the
development of the VCS Cloud product in conjunction with
particular customers. VCS Cloud has not yet been released and
Synopsys does not make this information available, even to the
customers referenced in the document. Therefore, the court finds
good cause to seal Exhibit B.
Dynetix’s request on behalf of Synopsys to seal Exhibit C is
DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Exhibit C is the table of
contents and first two chapter headings of the User Manual
distributed to customers for VCS MX. While the manual is only
distributed under license agreements with confidentiality
provisions, Synopsys fails to show why disclosure of the table of
contents and two chapter headings would result in harm.
Dynetix’s request on behalf of Synopsys to seal the redacted
portions of Dynetix’s Reply in Support of its Second Motion to
Compel is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The redacted
portions include exhibit-by-exhibit analysis of Exhibits B and C,
also addressed in this motion, and Exhibits D-G, H-O, and V-W
of the Yu Declaration in Support of Synopsys’s Opposition to
Dynetix’s Second Motion to Compel. These portions do
occasionally touch on details of Synopsys’s confidential design
specifications, which are sealable; however, large portions of the

4
Case No.: C 11-CV-05973 PSG
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTIONS TO SEAL

redactions are merely describing what is included in those
exhibits. There is a difference between describing what an
exhibit includes generally and describing the specific details of
what is included in the exhibit. Synopsys makes no showing
why the former would result in harm and these redacted portions
are not narrowly tailored to the sealable information.

1
2
3
4
5
6

The parties shall file documents that comply with the court’s determinations above within
seven days.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

Dated: April 1, 2013

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

5
Case No.: C 11-CV-05973 PSG
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTIONS TO SEAL